It's a slow news day, so today's Politico tackles the age-old question that keeps Washingtonians with low self-esteem up at night: in spite of all its money, post-graduate degrees, and important sounding job titles, is D.C. really nothing more than just Hollywood for ugly people?
I would say yes. Not because I actually believe it, but because it's apparently something that some people are sensitive about, and it's always fun to piss people like that off. But writer Anne Schroeder offers up some really compelling proof to the contrary. Really compelling proof.
For example, did you know that TV shows like The West Wing and The District, starring really glamorous and beautiful people like Martin Sheen and Craig T. Nelson, used to film here? (For some reason, there's no mention of K Street, which starred James Carville and Mary Matalin. Not hot enough?)
Don't forget movie stars like Ryan Phillippe and Matt Damon. Who cares if they're only here for a few days and usually don't leave their hotel rooms? Apparently, they increase the city's hotness quotient just by breathing the same air we do!
Also, did you know that Congress is getting more attractive? It's true! Why, there's Stephanie Herseth and...uh...um...I guess Maria Cantwell. Maybe.
Anyway, Schroeder doesn't just talk a good game. She includes photographic evidence of D.C.'s hotness, as well! There's a fantastic picture of the current Miss District of Columbia! Not to mention...wait, no, that's the only photo in the article. Huh. I mean...there's no one else they could have included a picture of, other than the one person in the city whose job it is to be beautiful?
And then there's some stuff about D.C. having hip restaurants and nightclubs, and a burgeoning fashion scene, and something about Condi, but my eyes had glazed over by that point.
All kidding aside, why is anyone still bothering with this discussion? You never hear people living in Boston or Pittsburgh or Chicago wasting time with this shit. Like any metropolitan city where the acting and modeling industries aren't major presences, there's a wide selection of people of varying degrees of attractiveness. And yes, shockingly, the really beautiful people tend to be few and far between. And for that, you can blame genetics, not geography.
But the only people who actually care whether or not D.C. is "ugly" by comparison, are transplants from New York or L.A. with superiority complexes, or lifelong D.C. residents with inferiority complexes.
Or, I guess, desperate journalists in need of a story.
I would say yes. Not because I actually believe it, but because it's apparently something that some people are sensitive about, and it's always fun to piss people like that off. But writer Anne Schroeder offers up some really compelling proof to the contrary. Really compelling proof.
For example, did you know that TV shows like The West Wing and The District, starring really glamorous and beautiful people like Martin Sheen and Craig T. Nelson, used to film here? (For some reason, there's no mention of K Street, which starred James Carville and Mary Matalin. Not hot enough?)
Don't forget movie stars like Ryan Phillippe and Matt Damon. Who cares if they're only here for a few days and usually don't leave their hotel rooms? Apparently, they increase the city's hotness quotient just by breathing the same air we do!
Also, did you know that Congress is getting more attractive? It's true! Why, there's Stephanie Herseth and...uh...um...I guess Maria Cantwell. Maybe.
Anyway, Schroeder doesn't just talk a good game. She includes photographic evidence of D.C.'s hotness, as well! There's a fantastic picture of the current Miss District of Columbia! Not to mention...wait, no, that's the only photo in the article. Huh. I mean...there's no one else they could have included a picture of, other than the one person in the city whose job it is to be beautiful?
And then there's some stuff about D.C. having hip restaurants and nightclubs, and a burgeoning fashion scene, and something about Condi, but my eyes had glazed over by that point.
All kidding aside, why is anyone still bothering with this discussion? You never hear people living in Boston or Pittsburgh or Chicago wasting time with this shit. Like any metropolitan city where the acting and modeling industries aren't major presences, there's a wide selection of people of varying degrees of attractiveness. And yes, shockingly, the really beautiful people tend to be few and far between. And for that, you can blame genetics, not geography.
But the only people who actually care whether or not D.C. is "ugly" by comparison, are transplants from New York or L.A. with superiority complexes, or lifelong D.C. residents with inferiority complexes.
Or, I guess, desperate journalists in need of a story.
4 comments:
The Hollywood for the Ugly comment I think has less to do with the relative attractiveness of DC residents than it has to do with the geeks that come there, get a job on the Hill or on K street and think it makes them better than other people. I used to work with a lot of these people, mainly guys. They were sometimes good looking, sometimes not, but they ALL thought they were the coolest guys ever based on what they did for a living. So it's not really the city that's Hollywood for the Ugly, but the Politics thing...Although, I can definitely say you're right that there are certainly ugly assholes everywhere, not just in DC. :)
I have good news and bad news. The bad news is, I lived in DC and now I live in Hollywood (in actuality, Southern California), and I'm afraid the saying is true. The good news is, before living in DC, I lived in Boston. Boston is DC for really ugly people.
The Hill did a piece on the top 10 sexy DCites, but they were really scraping the barrel by the time they got to number 10, and aren't number 4 and number 9 the same chick?
Post a Comment